On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:07:53AM +, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Thank you. That explains it then. I suppose there is no fix for the false
> > positives then? Since its the total message size. I began thinking that
>
> 1.6 points is not an FP. it's expected that some rules *will* fire
> on
Office of the Postmaster writes:
>
> > > A 3-5% ratio of our email is getting tagged with HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 which
> > > according to the DOC is HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words. The
>
> >Yes, it's the message size that's in question, not the "" tag. it's
> >expected that the rule may
> A 3-5% ratio of our email is getting tagged with HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 which
> according to the DOC is HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words. The
Yes, it's the message size that's in question, not the "" tag. it's
expected that the rule may fire on ham -- that's why it only scores 1.6
po
Office of the Postmaster writes:
> I sent the below about 10 days ago and I didnt see anything from anyone.
>
> A 3-5% ratio of our email is getting tagged with HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 which
> according to the DOC is HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words. The
> only problem is the emails in qu
I sent the below about 10 days ago and I didnt see anything from anyone.
A 3-5% ratio of our email is getting tagged with HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 which
according to the DOC is HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words. The
only problem is the emails in question had only 1 image in them and it was
It seems to be my couple of days to try and find out some problems.
A 3-5% ratio of our email is getting tagged with HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 which
according to the DOC is HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words. The
only problem is the emails in question had only 1 image in them and it was
a sp
